 |
Contents:
Why Does the UN Human Rights Council Single Out Israel?
This discriminatory treatment is not only prejudicial to Israel; it is a breach of the UN charter's foundational principle of the equality "of nations, large and small." It concluded a week and year of unprecedented discriminatory conduct. The week began with Archbishop Desmond Tutu reporting to the council on the high-level fact-finding mission to investigate "the Israeli willful killing of Palestinian civilians" in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, last November. He received a standing ovation, an extraordinary reaction by a body that frowns on applause. I suspect the appreciation was for the man as much as anything else, because the mandate that authorized the mission was a sham. It made a mockery of the council's own founding principles and procedures. It was a mission that should never have been. Accordingly, when I addressed the council that same morning, I made public for the first time that I had been invited by the council president to join the mission last November, but declined to do so. I explained to the council that one might have thought I would welcome the opportunity to serve under a UN human-rights mandate. Canada is a country that has regarded the UN as an organizing idiom of its foreign policy, a country that has made a substantial contribution to the development of UN law and the cause of human rights. My colleague and mentor at McGill Law School, John Humphrey, was founding director of the UN division on human rights and the principal draftsman of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Regrettably, though, I could not accept the mandate because its terms of reference made a mockery of Kofi Annan's vision for the new council and its founding principles of universality, equality and fairness. First, as a law professor and international lawyer, I could not accept a mandate to hear only one side of a dispute. The terms of reference deliberately ignored the Palestinian rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Sderot that preceded Israel's actions, and which continued even as we met. The entrance to the McGill University Faculty of Law, where I am a professor, is engraved with the words "audi alteram partem" (hear both sides). How could one participate in a mandate that violated this bedrock principle of the rule of law that denied a member state the right to a fair hearing and fundamental due process? Second, the mandate violated the presumption of innocence. The resolution establishing this fact-finding mission began by condemning "the Israeli willful killing of Palestinian civilians." The 19 Palestinian dead were a tragedy. But how could one participate in a fact-finding mission where the facts and the verdict were determined in advance a kind of Alice in Wonderland inquiry where the conviction was secured and the sentence passed even before the proceeding began? It is not surprising, therefore, that the council members who most consistently support the human-rights mechanisms of this body, including Canada, all refused to support this mandate. Regrettably, this discriminatory and one-sided approach has become not the exception but the norm. Council sessions of the past year reflected not only the same contempt for the rule of law, but the systematic singling-out of a member state for selective and discriminatory treatment, while granting the major violators exculpatory immunity. Examples abound: - There have been nine resolutions condemning one member state only (Israel) but none of any of the other 191 members of the international community, including, for example, no condemnation of the genocide in Darfur, or of the public and direct incitement to genocide and massive human-rights violations in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran. - The continuing exclusion of one member state (Israel) from membership in any of the five regional groups that govern the council, thereby denying a member state the fundamental rights of due process and equitable standing. - The council's discourse, as exemplified in the session just ended, as an endless drumbeat of indictment and incitement against Israel, again contrary to the council's founding principles and procedures. Indeed, in a world where human rights have emerged as the new secular religion of our time, Israel, portrayed as a meta-rights violator, emerges as the new anti-Christ of the international arena. And as if this were not enough, the council has now institutionalized forever the Alice in Wonderland condemnatory process and the corresponding drumbeats of indictment. It has institutionalized the condemnation of Israel as a standing item on the council agenda and institutionalized the mandate of the special investigator on "Israeli violations of the principles and bases of international law" in the Palestinian territories its only indefinite, open-ended and one-sided investigative mandate. The tragedy in all of this is not only that it fuels the ongoing delegitimization, if not the demonization, of a member state of the United Nations, casting Israel as the collective, targeted Jew among the nations. Or that it provides succour and assistance to those, such as Mr. Ahmadinejad, who envision "a world without Israel," as well as those who target Israel alone as the object of boycotts and sanctions. Rather, the tragedy is that all of this takes place under the protective cover of the UN, with the presumed imprimatur of international law, and the halo banner of human rights. It is not only one state that is under assault. The bell is tolling for the UN Human Rights Council itself. It is time to sound the alarm and return the council to its founding principles and ideals. Prof. Irwin Cotler is a Member of Parliament and the former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada. He is a board member of UN Watch. This article appeared in The Globe and Mail on Jun21st 2007
Will Bush Fund 'Education For War' Curriculum?
One of those "humanitarian" needs involved funding the schools of the Palestinian Authority. The question remains, however, whether the U.S. government should consider schools of the Palestinian Authority as one of those "moderate" elements that should once again be funded by the U.S. government. Indeed, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) told this reporter that, following the death of PLO leader and founder Yassir Arafat in November 2004, one of the clear promises made by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was that he would introduce textbooks that would promote peace and tolerance. When Rep. Sherman and 34 other congressmen confronted Abbas during his trip to Washington in May 2005 with the crass anti-Semitic incitement that was then being taught in the Palestinian schools, Abbas' defense was that these school books were published before he was elected leader of the Palestinian Authority in January 2005, and he promised to make improvements. Now, two years later, new PA textbooks for 11th and 12th grade have been published, and the first books published during Abbas' reign hardly educate for peace with Israel. Instead they promote the ideal of a violent struggle against Israel. Dr. Arnon Groiss, who holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies at Princeton University, and who serves as a senior researcher for the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, www.edume.org, translated these new schoolbooks and was recently invited to make a presentation for the European Parliament in Brussels, because of the EU member funding for the Palestinian Authority school system. Dr. Groiss reported that the new PA schoolbooks teach the following values:
* Jews are foreigners and have no rights whatsoever in Palestine. Groiss note that the PA schoolbooks teach the students that Palestine and Jerusalem has been Arab since antiquity, on account of the ancient Canaanites and Jebusites who are presented as Arabs. All others, including the Jews, were foreign invaders with no legitimate rights in the country. In these new Palestinian schoolbooks, which were produced by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, not by the Hamas, Jewish holy places in the country are not recognized. Instead, they are presented as Muslim holy places usurped by the Jews. Groiss points out that the Jewish holy place of Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem is renamed "Bilal bin Rabbah Mosque" in 2001, while in 1996 it was still called "Rachel's Dome" in another textbook. We are witnessing here a new myth in the making. In his presentation, Groiss brought up numerous examples of how the new Palestinian textbooks teach that Israel is solely responsible for the conflict and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. The Arab armed opposition to the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is not mentioned, nor is the invasion of seven Arab armies on the day that Israel declared independence in 1948. Groiss assembled a list of 25 accusations against Israel that appear in the Palestinian school books, which include the following:
* Israel contributes to Palestinian social ills and family violence The books also glorify those who kill Jews and achieve martyrdom; one book reads: " . . . The flow of blood gladdens my soul, as well as a body thrown upon the ground, skirmished over by the desert predators." In other cases, martyrdom is described as a wedding party. These new Palestinian schoolbooks thus obliterate Israel as a sovereign state, present it as an enemy that one should fight to the end. In other words, in Grioss' words, "they teach war rather than peace." The question that the Bush administration must now cope with is whether or not to fund the Palestinian war curriculum in the framework of "humanitarian" gestures for "moderate" elements in the Palestinian milieu. This article appeared in the June 20th edition of the Philadelphia Bulletin, June 20th, 2007
Another Shabbat in Sderot: A Personal Note This past Friday night, I went to pray at the 'Ohel Yitchak' Synagogue, in Sderot. A kassam rocket struck a direct hit on Ohel Yitchak exactly one month ago on May 17th. The attack - one of hundreds - coming from Gaza, hit the synagogue at 11:30 p.m., only half an hour after over 300 people, who were celebrating the joyous ceremony of bringing in a new Torah scroll into the synagogue's ark, had left the premises. Only the sponsoring family and some close friends were still at the synagogue at the time of the attack. I had arrived five minutes after the attack on the synagogue. The scene was from a war zone: total chaos – elderly men and woman, young parents, children and babies, all with eyes filled with terror. There were screaming and crying women and children and some people had fainted and were lying on the ground. Three years in combat service and I had never experienced such horror. A rocket had landed in the heart of a quiet suburban neighborhood – inside a house of worship. This article appeared at www,SderotMedia.com on June 20th, 2007
The Risks to Regional Security from International Forces in Gaza Jerusalem Issue Brief Institute for Contemporary Affairs founded jointly at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs with the Wechsler Family Foundation Vol. 7, No. 5 24 June 2007 * With the total collapse of Fatah in Gaza and the territory's takeover by Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been giving serious consideration to the deployment of international forces in the Gaza Strip generally, and more specifically in the sensitive Philadelphi Corridor separating Gaza from Egyptian Sinai. * A deeper look reveals that the international-forces idea is very dangerous with potentially grave results for Israel. Prof. Yehezkel Dror, a member of the Winograd Commission investigating the Second Lebanon War, asked Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni "hypothetically" what future historians would say about an international force that hindered Israel in operating against Hizbullah and would set a precedent for an international force in the Palestinian territories. * What Dror seemed to suggest was that the international-forces idea marked a sharp departure from the widely admired principle that Israel does not rely on foreigners for its defense and only wants to be able to handle it alone. This doctrine yielded massive U.S. military assistance and political backing for Israel. Once Israel changes its approach and starts asking for foreign troops to defend all its borders, the perception of Israel may well also change - from asset to burden. * Whereas the Europeans now identify Israeli-imposed movement restrictions on the Palestinians as the key problem, the Israeli view is the opposite: it is not the lack of free movement that is causing terror, but terror that is creating the need for inspections that limit movement. * Once Israel formally asks the Europeans to send troops to Gaza, they will not do so free of charge. They will probably prefer to send their troops to the West Bank instead of Gaza as a way of imposing their positions on Israel - not only regarding the checkpoints but also regarding other Israeli security requirements such as the separation fence. Israel Studies the Impact of International Deployment With the total collapse of Fatah in Gaza and the territory's takeover by Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been giving serious consideration to the deployment of international forces in the Gaza Strip generally, and more specifically in the sensitive Philadelphi Corridor separating Gaza from Egyptian Sinai. This narrow border zone has been the main route through which Hamas and other terrorist organizations have smuggled vast amounts of weaponry and trained operatives into Gaza over the past several years. In his testimony to the Winograd Commission, Olmert said he had asked the head of the National Security Council to study the issue of international forces.1 He did not go into further detail but presumably was not only referring to Lebanon, or only to Gaza, but to all the territories - including the West Bank in particular and possibly even the Golan as well.2 Indeed, soon after the upgrading of UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon, Olmert's coalition ally, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, raised the idea of sending NATO forces to Gaza. European sources confirmed to the author3 that Israel also looked into the prospects of international forces in the West Bank, but Europe shelved the idea because it has no enthusiasm to send troops either to Gaza or the West Bank. However, Javier Solana, the European Union's high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, stated in an address to the European Parliament on June 6, 2007, that stationing an international-observer force in Gaza is now a possibility, although Egypt "will find it difficult to accept." Solana said that for the first time after many years the notion of international forces "is not unreasonable."4 Israel, the Palestinians, and Egypt are considering the option. With the Hamas takeover of Gaza, the idea of international forces might sound good to many Israelis. Why should Israeli soldiers die in Gaza if European troops are ready to do so instead? Italy and Spain have already volunteered to send troops to Gaza, though they did not push the idea too ardently. Not only Lieberman but also two MKs of the Meretz Party, Avshalom Vilan and Zehava Gal'on, have prepared a detailed plan centering on the dispatch of international forces to Gaza and inviting the Arab League to take Gaza under its auspices.5 Attorney Ram Caspi, who is close to Kadima leaders and to Labor leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, portrayed a scenario in which Israel would choke Gaza economically so as to force the international community to take responsibility for the Strip, including international forces.6 Although in Israel the idea is being raised only in connection to Gaza, among the Palestinians the idea is being debated as a whole, the West Bank included. Dr. Ahmad Yusuf, adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, suggested sending inter-Arab troops as a wedge between Hamas and Fatah fighters. Fatah's former Deputy Prime Minister Azzam al-Ahmad, however, rejected this and suggested that international forces, once dispatched, be stationed on the borders between the Palestinian Authority and Israel rather than within the PA territories.7 Former Palestinian Information Minister Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, head of the Mubadara Party, rejected the Meretz MKs' idea on the ground that it conflicted with the notion of a Palestinian state.8 Will Multinational Forces Hinder IDF Operations? In any case, a deeper look reveals that the international-forces idea is very dangerous with potentially grave results for Israel. During Olmert's testimony to the Winograd Commission investigating the Second Lebanon War, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, a member of the commission, hinted at reservations about the idea: "One question about [UN Security Council Resolution] 1701 [is that] a precedent is set of Israel substantially relying for its security needs on a multinational force that has advantages or disadvantages and one cannot tell how it might develop. We found no thorough and genuine discussion on the subject."9 Dror further pursued this line during the testimony of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. He asked her "hypothetically" what future historians would say about an international force that hindered Israel in operating against Hizbullah and would set a precedent for an international force in the Palestinian territories as a "solution" that was not to Israel's satisfaction.10 What Dror seemed to suggest was that no adequate, in-depth discussions had been held on altering Israeli doctrines, and that the international-forces idea marked a sharp departure from the widely admired principle that Israel does not rely on foreigners for its defense and only wants to be able to handle it alone. That is, Israel only demanded recognition of its right to self-defense. This doctrine yielded massive U.S. military assistance and political backing for Israel. Israel was perceived by and large as an asset to the free world and a strategic ally of the United States. Once Israel changes its approach and starts asking for foreign troops to defend all its borders, the perception of Israel may well also change - from asset to burden. Not only will Washington reevaluate its relationship with Israel, but the European countries may begin a policy of coercing Israel to adopt the European positions in the dispute with the Palestinians. The main point of contention between European perceptions and Israeli perceptions concerns the cause of the problem. Whereas the Europeans now identify Israeli-imposed movement restrictions on the Palestinians as the key problem, Israel sees it as the Palestinian terror assault and justifies the regime of barriers and checkpoints as a necessity response. Both the latest World Bank report on the PA's economic deterioration and the U.S. "benchmarks paper" also point to the barriers and checkpoints as a major hindrance to the "peace process" and the viability of the Palestinian economy. Again, the Israeli view is the opposite: it is not the lack of free movement that is causing terror, but terror that is creating the need for inspections that limit people's movement. It is also an argument over what comes first. The Europeans say peace enables security; Israel says security enables peace. Europeans May Prefer Stationing Troops in West Bank Once Israel formally asks the Europeans to send troops to Gaza, they will not do so free of charge. They will probably prefer to send their troops to the West Bank instead of Gaza as a way of imposing their positions on Israel - not only regarding the checkpoints regime but also regarding other Israeli security requirements such as the separation fence. The collapse of Israel's security strategy could well have disastrous consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and Jordan alike. An indication that sending EU troops to Gaza will be conditioned on sending them to the West Bank was implied in a statement by Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazza during an interview with German TV Channel 3 on 31 May 2007, as quoted by the Dunia Watan agency of Gaza: "The idea . . . is Arafat's - to create an international monitoring mechanism for the . . . occupation and to protect the Palestinians from the Israeli aggression . . . . As for Fatah, its guiding principle is that Gaza and the West Bank are one entity, and if the spread of international forces is part of a peace agreement with Israel, the issue is worth studying and the Palestinians will not reject an international monitor of the occupation's behavior."11 Whoever needs proof that Europe is likely to demand stationing its troops in the PA territories can find it in a June 2007 a.m.nesty International report on human rights violations in the PA.12 The report fully endorses the notion that Israel's checkpoints system is the root of all evil, but what is important here is the operative recommendation to "Deploy an effective international human rights monitoring mechanism across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to monitor the compliance of each party [Israel and the PA]13 with its respective obligations under international law; report publicly; and recommend corrective measures to be adopted by the parties, other countries or international organizations."14 In essence, a hasty and undeliberated Israeli decision to invite international forces to the PA territories may lead to the total collapse of the Israel security doctrine and the protections against terror for Israel, Jordan, and - as the latest Gaza events proved - for the Palestinians themselves. Dangers of a "Safe Passage" Corridor Linking Gaza and the West Bank The checkpoints within the West Bank are arguably a legitimate issue. They indeed create an onerous burden on the Palestinians and should be constantly examined. The problem arises with the "safe passage" plan that gives the Palestinians an extraterritorial corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, far from Israeli security control and out of reach of Israeli sovereignty. No similar example exists of a country willingly yielding an extraterritorial corridor to another party, let alone an enemy, let alone for free. In this special case the proposed corridor risks cutting off the Negev Desert from the rest of Israel. And since it would pass through sovereign Israeli territory, it could inspire the renewal of Palestinian claims for the 1947 partition-plan borders. Contrary to the expectations of Oslo's architects in 1993, Gaza did not develop into a peace-loving entity with flourishing economic activity that needed border crossings and a passage to the West Bank to maintain its economic growth; instead it turned into another center of global jihad.15 It does not require a vivid imagination to understand that once the Palestinians have free movement in the West Bank and a safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank, al-Qaeda will soon establish itself along the axis that stretches from Sinai through Gaza to Ramallah, posing existential threats to the Palestinians, Israel, and Jordan combined. Egypt appears to understand far better than Israel the regional dangers inherent in sending Europeans troops to the PA territories. The head of the Egyptian security delegation in Gaza, that has now moved to Ramallah, Gen. Burhan Hamad, told reporters: "The Israeli request to have international forces deployed along the borders between Gaza and Egypt is sheer nonsense. There are peace agreements and no way Egypt will accept those forces, and there is no need either.this will not happen." As for the idea of stationing NATO or Arab League forces in Gaza, he said: "I am against any [foreign] control of the liberated land."16 There are real concerns that Christian troops, as part of international forces, may attract al-Qaeda elements from Sinai and within Gaza to operate against them. In the case of the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, the al-Qaeda group Fatah al-Islam has already threatened them.17 The Precedent of International Forces in Southern Lebanon To what extent did Olmert's decision to approve a ground attack in the final stages of the Second Lebanon War derive from the aim of encouraging a UN decision to send international forces? Israeli security sources told this writer that Israel was disturbed by the international insistence on sending forces only in the framework of UNIFIL, strictly within Lebanese parameters.18 The sources said Israel demanded a force that would be well outside the UNIFIL mandate. Resolution 1701 on an upgraded UNIFIL force was a compromise between Israeli insistence and international reluctance. Ofer Shelah and Yoav Limor, in their new book Prisoners in Lebanon,19 quote a protocol of a discussion between then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz and then-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz20 in which Peretz said: "The war effort ended. The talk now is about a multinational force. But it will not enter the territory unless we are there. [So] we have to take control on the ground in southern Lebanon." In other words, IDF soldiers were not sent to the battlefield to win the war but to give the international forces the pretext to enter. "What the dispute was all about," Olmert said to the Winograd Commission, "was that we do not leave when a ceasefire is reached but only when the international forces enter. There is no vacuum . . . . This was not achieved before the 11th of July and this operation [the final ground attack] saved [us]."21 * * * Notes 1. Olmert testimony to Winograd Commission, p. 53. 2. The testimony of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni revealed that the National Security Council supported the idea of international forces in places other than Lebanon. Livni testimony to Winograd Commission, p. 21. It is not clear whether this position only applied to Gaza or to the West Bank as well. 3. Meeting in Tel Aviv, 27 May 2007. 4. See note 15. 5. Ha'aretz, 30 May 2007. MK Vilan added to Israeli Radio on 31 May 2007 that international forces in Gaza might bolster Gaza's economy. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=864926&contra ssID=2&subContrassID=21&sbSubContrassID=0 6. Globes, 15 May 2007. 7. Kyodo News, 26 May 2007. 8. Ma'an news agency, 31 May 2007. http://www.maannews.net/ar/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=69588 The Palestinian government formally rejected the Meretz initiative, stating that it was an Israeli attempt to provoke disputes between the Arabs and the Palestinians and evade its obligations according to the Arab Peace Initiative. Sama news agency, 30 May 2007. 9. Olmert testimony to Winograd Commission, p. 51. 10. Livni testimony to Winograd Commission, p. 2. Livni argued with Dror, saying: "You speak about a precedent . . . for other areas and there is some hidden assumption that this is bad for Israel. I suggest that we leave it for now for further study." p. 3. 11. Interview with German TV Channel 3, 31 May 2007, as quoted by Dunia Watan agency of Gaza. 12. "Enduring Occupation: Palestinians Under Siege in the West Bank," June 2007. http://www.amnesty.org/resources/pdf/Israelreport.pdf 13. The PA was asked to "Take effective measures to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian armed groups and bring to justice those responsible for such attacks," ibid., p. 45. 14. Ibid. 15. As Colonel Jibril Rajub, a senior PA security authority, described it: "We wanted Gaza to become another Singapore, but it turned into another Mogadishu." Lecture together with Minister Gideon Ezra, Ambassador Hotel, Jerusalem, 30 May 2007. 16. Al-Quds, 3 June 2007. Solana, in his address to the European Parliament, expected Egypt to have trouble with this proposal because it might cast doubt on its effective control of the Egyptian side of the border. 17. Al-Quds al-Arabi, 4 May 2007. http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=yesterday\03z30.htm&storytitle=f f%C7%D4%CA%C8%C7%DF%C7%CA%20%E4%E5%D1%20%C7%E1%C8%C7%D1%CF%20%CA%E4%CA%D E%E1%20%E1%DA%ED%E4%20%C7%E1%CD%E1%E6%C9%20%E6%20%DD%CA%CD%20%C7%E1%C7%D 3%E1%C7%E3%20%20%CA%E5%CF%CF%20%C8%D6%D1%C8%20%20%C7%E1%ED%E6%E4%ED%DD%E D%E1%20fff 18. In a private meeting during the war. 19. Tel Aviv, 2007, 437 pp. [Hebrew] 20. Ibid., p. 207. 21. Olmert testimony to Winograd Commission, p. 75. * * * Pinhas Inbari is a veteran Palestinian affairs correspondent who formerly reported for Israel Radio and Al Hamishmar newspaper, and currently reports for several foreign media outlets. He is the author of a number of books on the Palestinians including The Palestinians: Between Terrorism and Statehood.
Sderot Tenses for the Next Round
"The bombing of Sderot is a direct consequence of our expulsion from Gush Katif. I feel I should be here - to lend a hand, to write, to bring the Sderot tragedy to the world. This is the Arab response to being given Gush Katif land, buildings, farms and businesses," I say. We stop at the Sderot police station. Trays of Kassam rockets are displayed. A group of visiting tourists gape. Each rocket has its own designer label pointing to its factory of origin. "The Israeli government threw out Jewish grandparents from Gush Katif so that rockets can kill Jewish children," I cry out in pain. Today, I learn about the manufacturing of these rockets. The long cylinders are the pipes of Gush Katif hothouses, the explosives are made of Israeli chemical fertilizer, the factories are powered by electricity from Israeli power plants. And under the noses of the Israeli army, the shooters send their vicious weapons to kill, to maim, to destroy the Jewish people. The TV crew has had enough of Sderot. They flee. I continue on towards the synagogue that had taken a direct hit. The study hall was still in shambles. Firemen give instructions to the caretaker on how to proceed with repairs. The elderly men who once came to the study hall to learn Torah are terrified of sitting in an unprotected room. The cost of rebuilding the roof is far beyond the means of the congregants. The caretaker begs us for help. Noam Bedein of the Sderot Media Center promises to put their request on his website. We meet with Chana and Tsefania in their simply furnished apartment. Chana is active in the Sderot Parent-Teacher Association. Brought up on a kibbutz of Holocaust survivors, she thought that having a number tattooed on your arm was natural. "I feel I've returned to the Shoah," she says. "I live with the tension that at any moment my family and friends could be destroyed. I live in fear every moment of the day." Tsefania, of Yemenite descent, was an army career officer. "I was for the Disengagement," he tells me. "Now I see how wrong I was. This is the result. It's been quiet for the past three days, but I know the bombings aren't over. I'm tensed up waiting for the next round, and it will be worse because I've let my guard down." Noam puts on a disc of film he has taken in a Sderot kindergarten during a Kassam rocket attack. We hear the Red Alert signal. The teacher cries, "Hurry, hurry, children!" Dozens of four-year-olds rush to the shelter, sit on the floor, count back from 10 to 1, and then sing as hard as they can. "They sing at the top of their lungs so they won't hear the boom of the rocket exploding," the teacher explains. Once again, Jewish children are running for their lives and singing so they won't hear the sound of the deadly rockets - built with Israel's assistance - that can annihilate them in seconds. Please pray for our people. [Before her community´s expulsion from Gush Katif, Rachel Saperstein was a teacher at the N´vei Dekalim ulpana and a spokeswoman for the Katif Regional Council.]
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article